... examine the evidence for oneself. The most extensive collection of this evidence is in the book by Halton C. Arp. .. .If, after examining the statistics yourself and understanding the evidence, you are unconvinced, so be it. Remember, if the conventional view is correct, all of these apparent juxtapositions must be accidental. Above all, do not be swayed by the views of the authorities, be they Dan Weedman, Allan Sandage, Maarten Schmidt, Chip Arp, or myself. We are fallible, too, and some of us (ask the others!) have axes to grind." (Burbidge, Geoffrey; "Quasars in the Balance," Mercury , 17:136, 1988.) Comment. Burbidge, a professor of physics at the University of California at San Diego, has had a long and dis tinguished career in science. He can write and get articles like the one above published. How many young, aspiring astronomers would dare? Reference. The book mentioned above, Stars, Galaxies, Cosmos; is described here . From Science Frontiers #65, SEP-OCT 1989 . 1989-2000 William R. Corliss ...

... limestone was exposed, the rain and atmosphere began to erode it. R.M . Schoch, a Boston University geologist, studying the weathering patterns on the Sphinx, found signs of water action up to 8 feet deep in the front and sides of the colossal statue. Other structures in the vicinity, made from the same limestone, supposedly at the same time (about 2500 BC), do not display such deep erosion. Based upon the depth of the weathering, Schoch dates the Sphinx at 5000-7000 BC -- much older than the mainstream date of 2500 BC. In fact, Schoch opines that work on the Sphinx could have begun as early as 10,000 BC. Egyptologists, of course, will have none of this. C. Redmount, a Univerisity of California archeologist specializing in Egyptian artifacts, said, "There's just no way that could be true." Some non-establishment archeologists, such as A. West, have long maintained that the Sphinx is much older than 2500 BC. Supporting the claims of much earlier dates is the massive stone wall and tower of Jericho, whose construction is now placed in the ninth millennium BC. Who knows, the Neolithic peoples of 10,000 BC might have been more precocious than we give them credit for. (Wilford, John Noble; "A Very Old Sphinx May Be Older Yet," New York Times, October 25, 1991. Cr. J. Covey. Also: Anonymous; "Experts at War over Age of Sphinx," Los Angeles Times News Service , ...

... Science Frontiers ONLINE No. 87: May-Jun 1993 Issue Contents Other pages Home Page Science Frontiers Online All Issues This Issue Sourcebook Project Sourcebook Subjects The Zuni Enigma The Zuni sacred rosette (top) closely resembles Japan's national symbol, a stylized chrysanthemum (bottom) The Zunis of New Mexico are different from other Native Americans in many ways. In an impressive, very detailed paper in the NEARA Journal, N.Y . Davis summarizes her investigation of these anomalies as follows: ". .. evidence suggesting Asian admixture is found in Zuni biology, lexicon, religion, social organization, and oral traditions of migration. Possible cultural and language links of Zuni to California, the social disruption at the end of the Heian period of the 12th century in Japan, the size of Japanese ships at the time of proposed migration, the cluster of significant changes in the late 13th century in Zuni, all lend further credibility to a relatively late prehistoric contact." We cannot delve into all classes of evidence adduced by Davis. Let us focus on the Zuni biological anomalies: Skeletal remains. These show a significant change in Zuni physical characteristics from 1250-1400 AD, suggesting the arrival of a new element in the Zuni population. Dentition. Three tooth features of the Zunis lie midway between those of Asians and other Native Americans; namely, shoveling, Carabelli's cusp, and 5-cusp pattern on the lower second molar. Blood-group characteristics. Blood Type B is frequent in East Asian populations but nearly absent in most Native Americans. Zuni, on ...

... of gravel pits and similar accumulations of rocky debris that look like human heads, ape heads, primitive tools, etc. Some of the pebbles do indeed resemble humanmade artifacts. (See accompanying sketch.) Most, though, require some imagination. The import of these artifacts, if that is what they really are, comes home when one learns that they come from deposits that are millions of years old! If any of these pebbles are really human-made, anthropology will be stood on its head. Since the present report is the 20th in a series, one can assume that the contributors to Archaeologische Berich ten have amassed incredibly large collections of ancient stones and pebbles that "look like" artifacts. Comment. Similar purported artifacts have been found at the controversial Calico Hills site, California, in Pleistocene deposits that may be 100,000 years old. And don't forget that "Face on Mars"! From Science Frontiers #77, SEP-OCT 1991 . 1991-2000 William R. Corliss ...